I'll take my turn.
I apologize, Mr. Bachand, for not having answered your questions, but I think that my colleagues covered the matter more elegantly than I could have done so.
You ask a critical question, Mr. Lake. I don't have a coherent single answer to your question, but I have pieces of an answer.
This is an industry that is uniquely global. In other words, the Canadian environment is important, but I would say that it's not overriding. It's not determining, because our problems are not here. Thank goodness they're not here. We're very grateful for that. Our problems are with the rest of the world. It's like that old headline in one of the London papers in the 1950s that said “Fog in Channel, Continent Cut Off”. Well, that's kind of the environment we're in. If the global system isn't working, the strength of the Canadian system can't compensate, if I can put it that way.
I will go concretely to the issue of the banks. Yes, our Canadian banks are healthy. They're doing well. They're stable. They don't do much lending in our business in the first place, which is another story, but even if they were totally enthusiastic and engaged, they couldn't possibly compensate for the lack of liquidity in global markets. Their stability is an advantage, but a mitigated one. I guess that would be, in a sense, my bottom-line comment.
I want to say something else, though. If we can exploit the stability we have managed to attain here, the relative strength of the economy and of the financial sector—all five of our banks are now among the 50 largest in the world, whereas none of them were last year, which is an interesting change in relative position—to attract investment into this country, including into the aerospace sector, that would be a huge asset. The question is how you leverage that strength and stability to do so. I think Richard covered it, in a sense. You need stability in policy. You need long-term staying power. You need commitment and a commitment to partnership that obviously is reciprocal.